Carrier Doomsday Cuts Yield Congressional Queries

Carrier Doomsday Cuts Yield Congressional Queries

The House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee wants to know the exact implications of cutting the number of carrier strike groups from 11 to eight or nine should sequestration budget cuts force the Navy’s hand.

Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., chairman of the committee, and Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., its ranking member, issued a letter on Aug. 12 to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus asking the Navy to answer a list of questions to include:

- What is the risk to the current defense strategy with a fleet of just eight or nine nuclear powered aircraft carriers (CVNs)?At this reduced level, how many CVNs could the Navy provide our combatant commanders, both for deployment and surge?

- What is the impact of this reduced force structure on the ability of the combatant commanders to execute their current Operational Plans?

- Given the range of options the Navy would have for reducing its CVN fleet to this level, how would you assess the impact to both the carrier shipbuilding and ship-maintenance industrial base?

- Assuming a path in which the Navy attempts to maximize the operational availability of the eight or nine carrier fleet discussed, what would be the impact on the estimated service life of the carriers retained?

- What are the estimated annual costs of retaining a CVN in a reduced operational status?

- What are the estimated costs to bring a CVN from a reduced operational status to a fully operational?

For one, it’s a good bet for a Navy carrier hearing to appear on the Congressional docket in the near term.

Second, this is the exact reaction the Pentagon was hoping for when rolling out the doomsday briefing for the potential military affects should sequestration remain on the books. Defense Department officials want this on the minds of Congress. Sky-is-falling reports make for solid hearing fodder.

As long as sequestration remains law, the Pentagon is due to receive a $500 billion cut over the next decade. It is due to have its budget reduced by $52 billion next year.

Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced the results of a Pentagon’s Strategic Choices and Management Review on Aug. 1 that predicted the worst case scenarios for the Defense Department under sequestration. Carter and  Adm. James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, unveiled a future in which the Army would have to cut its active duty end strength to 380,000 and the Air Force would have to start mothballing its B-52 fleet.

One of those scenarios include reducing the carrier fleet size to eight or nine. Forbes and McIntyre now want their own fodder to explain to their colleagues what this would mean to the Navy in hopes of arguing against sequestration.

Taking a closer look at the questions that the Seapower subcommittee formed for the Navy, the question about the estimated service life for the carriers retained should the Navy shrink to an eight or nine carrier fleet stood out. Along with the question regarding the costs of retaining a CVN in a reduced operational status.

The Navy continues on its path toward building the next generational Ford-class carriers. Many have questioned how sequestration will affect the building of the Gerald. R. Ford (CVN 78) and the John F. Kennedy (CVN 79). Would Congress consider retiring the Nimitz-class carriers faster in order to protect funding for the Ford-class?

Another fascinating question goes to the affect on the overall defense strategy. Answers to those questions will revolve around the Defense Department and the Navy’s ability to accomplish the Pacific Pivot military officials have focused on the past two years.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey has said the military will not be able to accomplish the national defense strategy should the sequestration cuts be executed over the next ten years. How Mabus and his admirals see the future of a U.S. Navy with eight carriers should be interesting.

Tags: , , , ,

Join the Conversation

The Seapower Subcommittee supports the industrial base and not the taxpayer. They should be looking at eliminating new construction after the second Ford-class (which should be stretched out, regardless of any unit cost increase), and refocusing Navy on putting a couple of the carriers into a reduced status operated by the Navy Reserves. That way we can also take down the active duty rolls by 5,000 for each carrier. That’s where the big savings are.

But the Seapower Subcommittee has also framed the WRONG question. It’s not “to meet current COCOM operational commitments,” its should be for fewer worldwide commitments. The whole Budget Control Act and sequestration is really about “doing less with less.” The Pentagon fails to understand that, and are dragging their feet because they want it all! They don’t give a damn about the taxpayers.

Th constitution provides for a strong defense !!! — NOT — a strong EBT program that provides for the same families for generations! Why do we give away billions to people that live here from other countries and live on us, and send their money back to their countries of origin? Wake up all of you dumb***** we’re getting $crewed!

We should be able to keep at least 10 Carriers, the Navy just needs to cancel there LCS and the “Junk Strike Fighter”. They should buy more Super Hornets and look into ( God Forbid a Foreign designed ship) that has more fire power and cost less than the LCS, which there a few very nice ones to chose from.

BIG one is this is more of Admirals and generals crying to save there pet projects Sequestration is NOT going away EVEN the Sec of Defense said that. Instead of coming together to save key defense programs they cry and want all cuts gone which is not going to happen. Tell the Pentagon to grow up and put resources together.

Eight or nine doesn’t mean you really have eight or nine ready to go. It means you only have 3 or 4 ready to go at any given time. The remainder will be in maintenance or coming off of deployments. THAT“S the real question to ask, can we make do with 3 or 4 carriers to cover the entire world-clearly the answer is no we can’t.

Cutting the LCS and the F-35 would be the smart thing to do. Cutting carriers would be the dumb thing to do.

Her that he thinks his job is guaranteed by the constitution LOL

Got to laugh at those who claim that the constitution is an economic suicide pact.

The greatest threat to America is the greed of it’s military contractor class who repeatedly claim to be more important than America itself.

The carriers are increasingly unaffordable prestige pieces. If they had all disappeared after ww2 it would have no effect on any of our wars since.

I have to agree, the carrier fleets are the absolute core of the navy and cutting them would cripple the navy more than any other cuts possible. I had to do a spit-take when I saw 8 or 9 carriers, as certainly they wouldn’t actually cripple the navy like that to fund pet projects, would they?

To a degree that is true, in that all of our recent wars have been in practically-landlocked countries. However, the amount of conflicts the battle groups have prevented as deterrence is vast.

Many defense analysts are making noises about the wisdom of large-deck carriers, saying that they put too many assets into one place, making them a tempting target. A growing number suggest that small deck carriers (the size of LHA-6 — USS America), or building more LHDs (in support of ARG’s) is a far better and more versatile option (proven during the Libyan campaign).

The reasoning includes better coverage (world wide, as we would have more of them), smaller carriers can be used to relieve large carriers of patrolling in low-intensity regions while still showing our interest, they make a far less tempting target, and cost a lot less.

But as far as the budgeting, one thing remains clear: even with sequestration, the USA spends more than 10 times on defense than the next top 10 nations combined defense budgets. Given the disastrous state of our acquisition system (JSF, FCS, LCS, and many other miserable failures), in return for continued funding, our armed services should agree to have the acquisition system put under a form of receivership.

Having carefully read ALL your comments above, you are ALL full of good ideas, and baloney, too…
We need ALL our CVN’s into the far foreseeable future…
There is a MINIMUM of 10 — 20, 25% WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE in the DoD budget…
We need to hire & train a few thousand forensic auditors — cheap investment — and rein in the excessive *PROFITS* to the “Defense Industry”…
The Pentagon Budget should be run by Citizens and Officers, *NOT* Congress, Wall St., and the Banksters…

Couldn’t agree more!!!!! However, those few shipyards that are left would cry foul just like the Tank production plant in Ohio. Nontheless we could build those foreign designed ships here… at a “100%” labor hike that goes into the contractor’s pockets not the labors.

When they refuel the carriers; doesn’t that knock them out of service for at least a year?

Making rich guys like Jim McNerney or Bob Stevens richer is ok, but keeping a baby alive is asking too much. We spend more on defense now than we did at the height of the Cold War and get far less for it, but we just can’t give enough money to people like McNerney and Stevens, neither of which has a single program that is on time and on budget. I wonder how many Americans will agree with that position when they’re voting this November?

When an LCS costs more than an Iowa Class battleship, then clearly we have a problem that needs addressing. Somehow I don’t think throwing more money at these huge ego carriers is the answer.

The GOP needs to realize that the sequester will go away if they agree to further tax increases and we then can keep 11 carriers. Overall we can have a more powerful navy for less money. Field conventional subs, cancel LCS and F 35, build new antiship missiles, more P8s and preserve the B1b for long range naval strike.
No tax increases and you can kiss the USN and US military goodbye.

They should revive the CVV “light supercarrier” idea from the 1970s. The carrier brass might be more willing to consider a smaller, cheaper carrier if the big CVNs are becoming endangered. On the other hand, the way contracting works now, we’d probably pay as much or more for a smaller carrier!

It is likely there is waste, fraud and abuse, as you say. There probably was a lot when the pyramids were being built. Is there any human endeavor that doesn’t have it? Your answer is to hire more government bureaucrats? Excessive profits by defense contactors don’t exist, according to the paperwork anyway. They are already limited by law and it is verified by some government bureaucrats. Done. And why do you have so much confidence in Citizens and Officers, compared to Congress, Wall St. and the Banksters? All I see is potential human weakness everywhere I look. Try it the old fashioned way. Each person in authority must be held accountable for mistakes or criminal activity. A few more high profile jail sentences will do more good than hiring thousands more government workers. Even public disgrace of select current and former administration bosses would be nice.

“No tax increases and you can kiss the USN and US military goodbye. “
1000 kisses then. No matter how much money is manufactured in the Federal Reserve, it will not be enough to ensure 100% security. Somebody has to make the right decisions at the right time to make efficient use of resources that currently are just this side of infinity (compared to other nations). Stop whining and get it done.

Educate me about what these carriers, support ships and air wings are doing now, along with what each item is costing, and I would be able to decide what I would give up. Of course, some national policy desires would be nice to factor into the decision, along with my personal prejudices. I thought this was the job of our elected representatives, but I’ll give it a shot. I’m guessing I could do better than they can. I’ll do it for nothing, and I’ll do it in a month. Don’t hold me to that. I may get behind schedule and over budget.

The vulnerability of small deck carriers is out of proportion to their operational cost savings. They can’t protect themselves nearly as well. Besides, if an argument for an LHD type carrier can be made on cost grounds, I argue that even that is too capable and costly for something like Libya. If we are going to resurrect dubious concepts, why not go with the converted container ship? The “Atlantic Conveyor” lasted a few days in the combat zone against a third world air force. That’s a few more days than it would have had against the big boys.

Hey guys, take a look here, perhaps some of you will see where there REAL money is being spent or WASTED.

it’s agreed that is much waste in the DoD but when cutting you need to cut the biggest fat first and then
move on to the smaller fat

Doesn’t anyone remember Obama’s pre-2008 campaign promise to “gut the military?” He’s doing that steadily.

We could go to 8 CSGs if we would actually develop a strategy for dealing with persistent pains in the ass like Iran and the Norks instead of kicking the can down the road and playing like there is peaceful coexistence possible with these swine running those countries. Neither one of these regimes has any intention of ever being anything other than exactly what they are now and always have been. Were I choose I’d say deal with Iran, more economic and regional bang for our buck.

Well then, I’m not arguing at all I completely agree. our air wings are hitting targets wherever they need to and the carriers along with the support ships make it possible for those naval and Marine Corps air wings to hit those targets. Without the support from the air wings our ground troops would have to fight on an even playing field with the Taliban and Al Qaeda (please excuse my spelling) which is close to being opposite the way our armed forces are trained. to sum it all up without our current strike capability we WILL lose more lives and more families will lose Mothers, Fathers, Sisters, Uncles, Aunts, Cousins, Brothers, and Sisters.

I completely agree. the JSF, or Joint Strike Fighter (I like tee’s definition better though) is currently a multi-million dollar paperweight and it is inferior to other nation’s aircraft which if entered into fighter to fighter combat will get our pilots killed. However, the Boeing F/a 18 e/f Super Hornet is a tried and true platform that gets results. The United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, and Royal Canadian Air Force all use both the Hornet and Super Hornet because of its exceptional performance and ruggedness. The idea that one aircraft can be everything for everybody is just stupid, It simply won’t work, it’s not a realistic idea. Also the reality is no surface ship can do crap if a squadron of fighters happens upon them so carriers are the natural defense… send the best pilots and planes in the world to defend yourself against other planes, like only a sniper can kill a sniper kind of statement, and you have to be there to really understand. I don’t know much if anything about the LCS, nut I do know that we NEED carriers and the F35 JSF is a piece of junk that I can gurantee you WILL get people killed.

LHDs also take a contingent of Marines with them so they are basically the ultimate strike vessel, just sayin’

In my humble opinion he needs to go, I’ll be so relieved when his term is up. we need a new president and it can’t be Obama, Biden, Hillary Clinton, or Christine Gregoire.

They’re off line for at least two years.

All nice posts. But think of it this way.
(1) The US hasn’t (and let’s be honest), hasn’t won a war since WW2. 10,000 insurgents with home-made rifles basically neutralized the greatest war machine in world history for the last 11 years. What’s that say about our 2 million people sized military!
(2) We really didn’t need a Navy to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan (yes, Pakistan).
(3) Where are all our US and European-equipped Persian Gulf “allies” when it comes to Iran. It’s their problem, not ours. Being in their face all the time is part of the problem.
(4) When something doesn’t work, stop paying for it.
(5) The $17 trillion in national debt was accumulated by both Republican and Democratic presidents who didn’t want to raise taxes to pay the bills.

Your view of the value of a navy being measured in terms of winning conflict is narrow and linear. The computer you are typing on and what you paid for it. The car you drive and the cost that has remained fairly reasonable for decades. The very stable predictable economic growth relatively speaking since WW2, all have principally occurred because of free and open commerce on this planet. A great majority of that is that no one thinks twice about goods being shipped to and fro across the globe of the high seas because the very mundane nature of it is a result of there simply being no one to challenge US naval supremacy. There still isn’t, not even the Chinese boogeymen that some like to talk up.

That and the notion that WW2 was an absolute victory so grossly overlooks the myriad of unresolved issues that were left at the end of it that’s it’s not worth discussing.

the reality is with the sequester in place the military will be decimated. The tea party is effectively doing what the communist party always wanted to do

How about 2?

Carriers are the Navy’s modern day battleship. A big expensive target that is obsolete.

I agree in another aspect: our Navy is all over the world. I follow the military pretty closely and have seen their work in remote areas, medical clinics, veterinarian clinics, building schools, supplying school materials, building playgrounds, hospital ships giving care to those who would never have it otherwise. The list is almost endless. Alongside the Coast Guard, they keep the seas of the world as safe as possible. How many knew that Coast Guardsmen are deployed in the middle east? The Navy carriers just offshore perform many missions in support of those on the ground. Naval personnel are also on the ground in A’Stan. It is a very integrated operation. Pull one part and it puts enormous strain on the remaining parts. I’ll not get into the dispute of who wins what; I’m simply addressing the importance of the role our navy performs globally, from my viewpoint. :-D

We spend and waste more in programs and departments that we shouldn’t have (i.e. Education, Health, EPA) than we do in defense. Yes there is waste there as well. It is long past due to do a bottom up based budget, eliminate programs and departments that are not justified under the Constitution. Reduce the size and scope of the federal government and return power back to the people and the States…

If the navy disappeared the troops on the ground wouldn’t even notice the difference — they vast bulk of the air support comes from the airforce. The navy is just in the war for show.

its been known for 30 years that the carrier is obsolete. even during the cold war carrier battle groups had to huddle together and use all their capability just to defend themselves and that was against 1960s weaponry.

“The GOP needs to realize” — LOL really you don’t think they already know ?

They simply chose their banker friends over working class servicemen. Wow what a surprise.

As one republican banker friend said — the losers will vote republican no matter who much we take from them.

Ever heard of inflation?

The sequester was Obamas idea. And the left complains about our massive defense spending all the time. You can’t have it both ways. Besides sequester is only a cut in the annual increase. And the tea party can only claim a handfull of senators and congressmen holding very little power. But of course are the lefts scapegoat for everything.

I totally agree!

They told me there would be no math!

Can Arbys absorb so many waiters when the abolish the standing army. LOL

The idea that the Navy somehow is the policeman of the sea is laughable.

if the GOP agrees to more tax increases the sequester will go away. It is their call

Are more carriers worth a hollowed out Navy?

Is it worth having the same amount of carriers if the Chinese start to out produce us in everything else? I don’t think so.

Indeed. Repubs thought they could get a win by arresting the welfare escalator…

Agreed, politicos can stop meddling in the affairs of people and return to their constitutional duties instead of looking for a Big Government Social Intervention; be it in trying to impose state religion (bad) or tell people they can’t name their baby Messiah (which is not the affair of the states either)

Wikipedia suggests from (http://​archive​.gao​.gov/​d​2​3​t​8​/​1​4​2​2​4​7​.​pdf) that Iowas cost 58M/year to maintain in 1990. That’s a hefty chunk of change…

Every heard of an online index of inflation calculator?

How much does it cost to redesign the structure of an LCS? I’ll bet it’s 100 times as much.

Isn’t there some congressional law requiring either 11 or 10 carriers?

Remember when we had 15 carrier battle groups plus another 4 battle groups centered around the Iowa class battleships back in the 1980s? Good times.

the slice of the federal budget that goes to the military has gotten smaller every year. how many more people (babies that we don’t kill prior to exiting the womb naturally) do we hve to care for? voting this november is only in new jersey and virginia…increasingly this vote is not about real choice, but how fast we move towards leftist totalitarinism.

A C — at least you won’t cost us any more money, you said you’d do it for free!

Admittedly, the Navy is a support organization…90 percent of materials to support the ground force and air force in theater comes from the sea. as long as there is no maritime threat, you are correct…threat of a single mine in your port of entry will grind your ground campaign to a halt!

BLAME the Tea Party — REALLY?!? The government is too big and is a cancer on its citizens. Consitutionally we should have Limited Government with Enumerated Powers. The governmetn continues to do things they shouldn’t and pay for things they shouldn’t. John Boehner is no tea party member. he executed his plan, not a tea party plan.

With Tea party slogans like
“tell the government to keep its hands of my medicare“
you know that the social welfare trainwreck cannot be stopped and the only way to save the military is to make sequestration go away through tax increases

You cannot cut the LCS. Just like the Ford Class, regardless if your cut them or not, the Avenger Class (the Navy’s only Mine hunting capability) and the FFGs are getting scrapped. The Avenger’s life cycle has already been extended far beyond what it was intended, and FFGs are already being retired faster than the LCS’s are being built. I’m no saying the LCS is the best replacement, but canceling it is not the answer.

Tell me about the Bataan Deathmarch, Guam, and Singapore in WWII

O.K., I’ll be your huckleberry: Three Allied disasters stemming from insufficient defensive preparations, particularly the shortcomings of their naval forces. You can also add Wake I. to the list, although that one is at least partially on the backs of gutless leadership back at Pearl.

The only thing laughable is how many times you’ve been banned from this site for your ceaseless trolling.

“If they had all disappeared after ww2 it would have no effect on any of our wars since.” Really? The people involved in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Gulf Wars I & II might beg to disagree…

Except they refuse to land anywhere the army hasn’t already secured the beachhead. Not so much a strike vessel as a tourist cruise

F-35 is larger than the next 10 largest DoD acquisition programs combined.

So what happens when the biggest acquisition program in the history of the DoD, F-35, doubles in cost and blows the bank? Well there’s going to be a bunch of stuff that you can no longer afford to buy. When they realize the the learning curve assumptions and O&S costs were fantasies too, the TACAIR force structure will be in ccomplete kaos. To pile on, the T&E guys are still expecting more schedule slips and cost overruns in the SDD program so it is only going to keep getting worse.

Prudent actions — 1. Cancel F-35B (we don’t need a super expensive stealth CAS aircraft with not legs and no internal payload. 2 Determine ASAP is F-35C will ever work on a carrier, if not cancel the C. 3. Complete development and build only 1 F-35 Variant, C model if carrier suit resolvable, A model if not. Buy half as many and use ugraded F-15s/F-16s/orF/A-18s to fill out the force structure.

Sure there are others like LCS that need to be culled but there is 1 program that is killing the DoD and that is F-35. Start there first.

We have a few defense programs sucking up the majority of the DOD budget. It’s insane.

The Lincoln CVA-72 just started it’s three and a half year RCOH in March of this year and is scheduled be completed in Nov. 2016. The Roosevelt CVA-71 started it’s RCOH in Aug. 2009 and is supposed to rejoin the fleet this month. The Vinson CVA-70 completed sea trials after it’s RCOH in July 2009 and did not deploy until Dec. 2010. There will be CVA in RCOH for the next 20+ years if completed as scheduled. So we only have 9 CVA’s available until the Ford comes on line in 2016.

Its always a hoot when government employees who demand cradle to grave military socialism claim they are against big government.

William is still pining for the soviet union. Such a bummer that we won the cold war.

History (being written 50 years in the future) will agree that the F-35 program is what brought down the US defense as a whole and thus fell the entire country to political and economic chaos from out of control politicians and federal budgets

…Damn. you sure told him, huh? Hey, I’ve looked and can’t find it — can you help?… Maybe post a link to the latest AUDIT of the Fed…???…Briefly, be a *GOOD* friend, OK…???…

…you listen to Rush Limbaugh too much…try some Glenn Beck, or Rachel Maddow, for a change…

So you want to cut the carrier force structure, This means relying on the USAF which is being cur as well by a number of wings and relying on the F35. We are losing “friends” everywhere to frankly base our ships or keep our airfields. The answer is not easy but the carriers are the last I would cut. The LCS makes no sense since the ships have to stay further out to sea to protect themselves from missiles. All this when other nations are building carriers, buying new planes, and being more aggressive. I frankly scratch my head when I read in the Tampa paper that the Army wants to send 80 million or so to move 20 plus Blackhawks to McDill to keep it open. Close the base, move the commands to Bragg where they belong. See how confusing it is. Don’t mess in my house.

How do you even work the math to get that figure? And how can you not expect a large overall cost figure when your trying to meet many requirements under a single program as opposed to doing so under separate programs for new combat aircraft? If I had a dime for every time somebody said “biggest acquisition program in the history of the DoD” I could pay for the damn thing myself. It’s not that much of an accomplishment if you think of the combined cost of three separate fighter programs with planned numbers in the 2,000–3,000 range.

The F-35B is the only potential replacement for the Harrier in the near future. It’s the last variant we shouldn’t cancel as we won’t get another shot at STOVL anytime soon.

Buying the F-35C in place of the F-35A variant for the USAF wouldn’t make any sense. The Air Force doesn’t need the heavier landing gear, folding wings, and all of the other systems required by the Navy. That’s dead weight to them.

Cancel the F-35 variant and upgraded Super Hornets can continue doing the job in the short term, it’s rather sad/amusing that what was planned as an interim aircraft might end up the mainstay of naval aviation for three decades. Yet in the long term the USN needs a new fighter and work on it needs to get started now. Not a few years from now. Now. And don’t be surprised once it costs more than the planned F-35C buy because the Navy wants something larger and more capable.

Upgraded F-15s and F-16s were supposed to fill out the force structure pending several hundred F-22s, now you want to slash the F-35A buy in a similar manner? What’s in the works to replace those F-15s and F-16s then?

Lets not even bring up the need for a next generation strategic bomber or the notion of getting a proper successor to the F-15E.

You’re telling me that history isn’t going to blame the President or Congress, isn’t going to blame the out-of-control growth in entitlement spending, isn’t going to blame trillions in deficit spending, and isn’t going to blame a dozen other issues, yet is going to blame a tactical fighter program? I’d hope future historians are more competent than that.

So this is now oblatt with two Ts in his name. Is this account five or six for you?

I hope there are “future” historians. They don’t teach real History in schools anymore. They teach some abomination that the politicals approve. Better than 50% of the high school seniors graduating in 2013 have no clue about Vietnam.

I don’t understand your first comment. When a $200B acq’ program goes to $400B there is $200B of stuff that I now can’t buy. O& S is going to kill us too.
We don’t need STOVL. Please tell me when it was decisive? The Falklands? Only because UK had no real carriers. We have to face facts, we are not able to pay for everything on the wish list and STOVL is a luxury we can’t affort. Attack helos or attack V-22s will have to do. Plus why do we need a $150M-$200M CAS aicraft with standoff stealth. The whole thing is gold plated for some other mission.
The C has better legs (still less than optimal if pivoting to the Pacific). If we reduce the SDD to one model, maybe we will actually get one to complete SDD and pass OPEVAL? As it is we have 3 separate programs with similar subsystems/avionics and we can’t afford 3. Going to 1 would also reduce the logi tail.

As for upgraded 15/16/18s I was recommended new builds since the cost per flight hour is much lower than trying to milk a few more thousand hours out of aircraft designed for lower hour lives. In addition, there will be plenty of places where these aircraft will still be more than sufficient. The USAF Gen 5 or nothing is putting them out of business.
Agree we need a LRS-B and other things (F-15E replacement). How do we do that without cutting back the F-35 which is the pig at the trough? The older aircraft would play supporting roles against a near peer and would take the duties where F-35/F-22 are not needed. They are much cheaper to buy and operate thus saving money for other needed programs.

History proves again and again that those who control the sea lanes gain the greatest economic benefits. Sure its a large cost, but do we realize the intrinsic value our Navy brings to the US’s economic and political power? Its a great investment, just for that.

China doesn’t have a EPA, or if it does it’s perfectly in cahoots with the wonderful free market.

I could bottle some Shanghai air for you, but…

The Ford-class carriers’ reactor cores are being designed for a 50-year life, thus negating the need for a 25– to 30-year RCOH. The large engine room machinery (propulsion turbines, generators, etc.) will still need attention. But the expensive, time-consuming part of a major overhaul of any nuclear vessel is refueling.

I certainly hope that social-welfare programs wind up wrecking themselves. (They may just do so within my lifetime.) No government body should be used as a proxy for stealing from some to support others who slough off personal responsibility. Our Federal government has been actively fighting a “war” on poverty ever since LBJ’s administration. Like smallpox, is poverty a problem that has been eliminated in the US?
If slavery means stealing by violence or the threat thereof 100% of a person’s productive effort, at what percentage does it become non-slavery?
If our government’s only mandate was protecting us against force and fraud, or even if it ruled strictly in accordance with the Constitution, it could do more with less.

I see the same old arguments that i read about ere argued after ww1. The military then as cut down to nothing and carriers were just starting to come into the picture. The question to ask looking at the world as we know it now is will there be another world war? To me the answer is YES. With China and Russia acting the way they are I can see it happening. So what should we do? Be prepared. Cannot cut Carriers by any means. They take to long to build. What we have when the next war comes with the tech we have today will be what we fight with. It wont be like ww2 we could built a fleet and draft millions of troops. Right now they have to prepare many years in advance to replace the Nimitz class. They are building a Ford class to arrive in commission when it is time to replace a Nimitz class. Many people don’t understand that for some reason.
Right now we have both China and Russia interested in building Carriers. China especially , We also have India as well. India can improve quite quickly because they have been operating Carriers for quite some time now and they have said their next Carrier will be similar in size to the Forrestal or Kity Hawk class with catapults. Around 60,000 tons. They just launched their first built Carrier in their own country and I’m sure have learned allot from building it. This will start a Carrier race I’m sure and China will build one next. With China and Russia Allies as ell as India and Russia allies there is a triangle there for sharing knowledge and Carrier building to improve. Well in a war if India, China and Russia side with each other and they have just three carriers apiece then things would be more evenly matched. Much like the Pacific in WW2. Don’t under estimate them. If you look in the videos China deck crew have copied all the signals of the flight deck crew of US Carriers. So they will copy. e have already did the research of construction and tactics and China, India and Russia will copy it. So they will quickly catch up.

Also Russia has just converted one of their Kiev Class Helo Carriers to a Fleet Carrier for India. Much knowledge learned there. I’m sure that yard ill be building Carriers for Russia in the future.
Since WW2 Carriers have been the back bone of US Navy strategy. If it was not for the creation of that strategy W2 I believe would have been lost or been much longer.
Also I see an isolationist approach like after WW2. That cannot be. The world is different today. We have a global economy. The world is linked together like never before. When we look locally we see there are good and decent people and there are crazy’s. Its the same on the world stage. There are decent leaders and there are crazy’s. People say why is the US the police of the world? 1) If your not from the US it is because your country is to lazy to do its job and help out leaving it up to the US to keep the crazy’s in check. 2) If your an American the US is keeping check on the crazy’s so hopefully another world war wont happen and because the US is separated by oceans from other country’s of trade and relationship we have to have a strong Navy and look out for our interests. Our merchant ships and so forth. It keeps our economy going and you with jobs. Plus we ant to watch out for our allies even though they have been lazy and could help more on the Navy side instead of getting rid their ships. Bases are in Europe because Russia’s battle strategy is similar to the German Blitz in WW2. So don’t want another WW2 to happen where Russia would take Europe before we could help. It takes a while to transport troops and equipment from the US to Europe. It has to be done by ship. NAVY NEEDED. That’s why the bases are there in UK and Germany.
Yes, it would be nice if we could all have this utopia everyone wants where we could just get along and give each other a big hug. Really though its about everyone wanting to make money. Just as long as they can make money. Don’t want to interrupt them making money even though the world is getting invaded. Same attitude before WW2. It took Pearl Harbor to change their minds. If we sit back and do nothing they will come for us. Years before 911 the terrorist were bombing in the US and we did not even know who they were. So it is bull if you think they hate the US because we went to the Middle East. They call the US the Great satan because of our way of life. They don’t like freedom because they know they would not be in power. The people would not choose them.

One thing we all are forgetting is that these plants hire workers who pay taxes to support the Welfare that Obama and the DemocRATS have created since 2006. I know one thing I am tired of supporting my family and 6 or 7 more families that are on welfare due to the current economic problems created by the DemocRATS

Also need to remember defense hire people they pay Federal Income, Social Security and Medicare Taxes. which causes other jobs to be created and those people pay taxes. Health, Education, Welfare and EPA do not create jobs they destroy jobs and cause people to be come depend on the government.

Let’s get rid of the Jones Act and see how many more jobs the free market creates…overseas.

With that logic, we should all refuse to pay taxes. “Not one dollar to food stamps” also affects DHS grants so that Mayberry can have a SWAT team, the ATF turning a blind eye to gunrunning while also partaking of the activity…

Every generation thinks it will reap the peace dividend sown by the blood of the previous generation.

Never reap that harvest. Just sow, again and again and again…an endless watering with blood.

And ironically enough, just in time:

Better known as “General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy”, 1928.


Foreign ships carry all the goods to American ports these day. We don’t have much of a Merchant Marine, except to carry military goods. Worrying about one old carrier from Russia to China or India is not even relevant. We could take them out before they ever leave port (it’s called strategic bombers and cruise missiles). There really is no bogeyman out there right now. It’s time to stop paying for other’s responsibilities, and give us taxpayers a break. OR we should just start billing them for our Navy services. As to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, give them our western Pacific fleet and make them defend themselves.

Let the religious fanatics (and we have our own right here in America) settle “God” issue amongst themselves. NOT our business. And if we didn’t arm them, they wouldn’t be such a threat. So, Money trumps God.

Pure idiots! How in hell can we count on anyone but ourselves? Sending defense jobs to a foreign country should be treason. Talking about wages, our people spend or save the money they make right re, supporting our economy and the defense budget you’re wanting to cut. Foreign country’s don’t support anything in the US unless they get large dividends or their buying our assets. You had better start supporting the very people that pay your salary’s. I don’t believe you’re doing tax payers any favors by eliminating US jobs to save money. These people will turn tail when it hit the fan and we’re left wishing these jobs were still here.

the navy sucks.…and the air force blows.…both a waste of green backs !!!!

Reference to comments on fraud, waste and abuse. In the period 2000–2010, depending on your definition of FWA (mine includes overruns and schedule slips and general incompetence) the total was greater than the sequester cuts that loom. Yes, hundreds of billions. So, there’s a lot of slack.

Additionally, people here glibly suggest tax increases but who are they talking about paying more? The rich again? The middle class? Everyone? If congress and POTUS can’t determine what budget money is required to meet the national defense strategy, whatever that is, and then finance it with entitlement reductions and/or tax increases that should be borne by everyone that’s protected, then we’re in deep rough and find ourselves with an unplayable lie. Part of “The Fourth Turning” some would say.

for starters:
increase the medicare tax to 7%, it will hit everybody
add a federal VAT of 10% and who needs the sequester?

As a Sgt. E-5 in the Marines (1964–1970), my concern would be close air support. Reducing the Carrier fleet down to 8 or9 could cause a problem the BLT’s. As you know, the Marines are usually the first in. Be it by Sea or Air. Without a Carrier Air Wing as support the casualty rate could go way up. It’s the Carrier Air Wings that help keep our butts out of the preverbal fire. And with all the trouble were having around the world with the different Muslim organizations & Terrorist groups, hot spots can crop up at any time & anywhere. Or in more than one spot. Without the possibility of close air support, would mean higher casualty rates and or failure to establish a beachhead or Forward Operating Base (FOB). Which could a mission failure. Nobody wants that. The Marine Corps operations are built around close air support. I think this area needs to be investigated closer & in depth. Thank You. J E Bishop.

Cut the f35 and LCS, then you could sustain 10–11 carrier groups… The LCS… Really?? The F-35 at $200 million each really? Common sense has retired from the Pentagon and Congress.…

Simple: do away with Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Establish a Drone service. Arm all ballistic missiles with multiple drones and tell the world if you anger us we will drone you to death. Problem solved.

Well how about Congress get their crap together and actually pass a budget so the automatic cuts do not take effect and then maybe they can keep some of the carriers.

The problem with cutting ship building and any high technology industrial base is you pay a tremendous cost to get it put back into operation. Russia is experiencing this very problem right now. The commercial companies won’t pursue a product if it isn’t profitable and right now military company stocks are not performing well. There will be another round of sell-off’s and consolidation as what happened in the late 1980’s. The argument about Iraq and Afghanistan are valid for reducing the size and complexity of teh military until the next high tech encounter, then to catch up is too late. You think China is our friend, think again!

Very well said…

Yeah, let’s see how well the army fights without air support or superiority.…lots of dead soldiers. And don’t give me any crap about helicopters…all they’ll be in a war is a good, slow target for jets.

All I can say is you need to check you facts and statistics! You’re way off base! Make a comment again once you’ve educated yourself.

Those allies raise nosie about Iran, they don’t just shop up as a top headline on whatever news site/tv-channel/newspaper you look at…

“putting a couple of the carriers into a reduced status operated by the Navy Reserves.” If what is meant by this is to operate the carriers manned 100% by reservist there is a “minor” problem. First, Reservist drill one weekend and month and Active Duty Training 2 weeks a year. The staffing needs for ship’s company would far exceed any reserve unit of today. We are talking around 3,000 people. Now add the Air wing which is why there are carriers. I flew “Starboard Delta” during one of those 2 weeks Reserve Air Wing work-ups. The ship had ships company on-board. I couldn’t imagine what it would have been like if the ship’s company was 100% reservists. The Air Wings augment their training with additional drills and special active duty periods in keep their aircraft flying skills honed. That is not the case for the ship board units. That being said — IF reservists were to try and get a carrier underway from pier-side for a drill weekend they would have only about 10 hours (at night) outside the harbor to complete their training. The other option would be to have the ship’s company reservist only do maintenance on the ship on their drill weeks. Ships require a LOT of maintenance and full-time personnel do that. Bottom line there is no cost savings as trying to ruin a carrier on a Reserves training schedule is a train wreck waiting to happen — VERY DANGEROUS to hte people on board not to mention the pilots trying to fly aboard. The ship would be unsafe.

It’s an ironic argument for the state keeping its hand in the manufacturing biz rather than let an entire industry disappear. For instance, if Newport News decides to go under, the government would probably have to bail them out, take over the company or allow carrier-building capability to disappear. Which option is the least unpleasant?

If we can’t have as many carriers as before, the next best thing is figuring out ways to get them out of the slips as quickly as possible. 3 years for RCOH is tough. Alternatively, strategies such as using carriers as lily pads to hop a drone force off of (take off from A, hop to CVN, load up and refuel, fly on to B) would allow for land bases from afar to contribute striking power in an environment of less carriers (or alternatively, use heavy bombers to carry payloads over long range).

It’s possible we may switch to conventional carriers again to get around the refueling problem, or use more automated nuclear cruisers.

CDR R — Very well said — CDR T

Most people would be surprised to find out just how many ‘foreign hires’ the U.S. uses all over the world! They are responsible for security, maintence, house keeping, etc.

Sir — I think you got your parties mixed up. Demos & POTUS came up with this phony sequester!

As an ex-supply officer/comptroller in the Navy I witnessed waste in procurement. Most of this ‘waste’ was by design on the part of our elected officials at the behest of industry. The high priced hammers & aircraft toilet seats were the results of Congressional mandates that this or that industry would be the “sole source” for the procurement of these items. Industry could — and did — set the price where ever they wanted it!! This practice continues today. Big money passes from industries to Congress for ‘reelection’ assistance.

You, Sir, have told the story of the modern day Navy and how it is an intergal part of our national security. Thank you!

When Carter was POTUS, he tried to get the Armed Forces to adopt a ‘bottom-up’ budget. It turned into a disaster and was never implemented. (This is the same guy who gave all members of the military a monthly bill to park on their own base!)

You are an idiot. I was tactical action officer on the USS Carl Vinson, Bill Clinton did not send us to Somolia WHILE Russian Generals also occupied their parliament. Imagine having weapons release authority on a carrier, and CNN had two global threats and you had just become the ready carrier. Les Aspen and Bill Clinton sent some tomahawks instead, and we had Black Hawk Down, AND the future Al Queida isnsurgents in numerous countries. We knew who the number one bad guy was then and were hunting him. The world paid the price on 9/11. Also, Spruance after the Marianas Turkey Shoot of WWII delayed the carrier as an offensive weapon. 4 Days after the largest air battle ever at Guam Orote Point, he let them pursue. He was not a pilot. They launched and destroyed 4 Japanese Again, sequester and lowering carrier battle groups is a mistake because one carrier is more vulnerable, two is invincible. The crews and training are more than you could have handled as a pea brain idiot. If a carrier is sunk, 8000 US citizens could perish. 15 Carriers was the optimum for Op Tempo Pers Tempo.

You obviously did not see the Missouri and NJ shooting tomahawks in the first gulf war. they had CIWS and tomahawks. the guns still work fine and the hull is impenetrable. before gulf war one they were onstation and their was a carrier battle group,. and marine LHA amphib group. that is how the navy works, not by dumb asses who play video games. super hornets replace the f14 which was anti air only. brown water warfare is fine and killing diesel electric subs is the main game then the carrier has no threats. 15 machine gun mounts kill slow fliers if the sea sparrow and ciws cant get them, or any aircraft. shut your trap please.

OK, look who does the strategic minerals report each year, the CIA. The USA imported from 60 countries to conduct WWII. Austraila and Canada are key since we can’t even make a single Jet engine from our minerals CONUS plus AK. Now who made the strategic minerals act, FDR did. Keeping the sea lanes open, to get materials for a protracted war or economics in general such as oil tanker traffic (yes I was in the tanker escort business pre gulf I), running minefields, guarding the marine LHA ICEPAC assault group, providing close air support USMC F18 and Harriers and Navy F18’s plus spec ops the USAF and USA can’t provide are key. Then you have all the blockades, and beacheads. If you try to fly the army on C17’s you don’t have enough. How did they get their FedEx? USNS ships also provide support. Who protects a minesweeper? You all need to realize FDR had it right and the repaired Carriers after Dec 7th and Midway were the decisive move in the war. Ever hear of the Marianas Turkey Shoot? look it up. There were more Jeep and Heavy Carriers that day than ever existed in your life, and more navy ships than we have NOW, 16 day naval bombardment. Get a clue fools.

Most of these budget-ax wielders have never studied the Pacific War. It takes a lot of naval hardware and logistics to be ready anywhere on the planet. A carrier task force is a mobile, protected naval base that can set up almost anywhere. In Gulf War I how could the Army have moved so much equipment under the brilliant leadership of General Schwartzkoff? It was logistics, with most the heavy stuff moved by boat, that rescued Kuwait.

First, let me say that I served in the Air Force and haved worked as a civilian for them and the Marine Corps. However, I have enough experience with the joint planning environment that I believe I have a fairly good grasp of all the services requirements. That being said, I am amazed at the lack of understanding as to the need for a strong Navy: worldwide force projection. The carrier battle group has the singular ability to quickly mobilize a warfighting force anywhere in the world. Neither the Air Force nor the Army can meet this requirement. In all fairness, it has never been their requirement; it has always been the Navy’s. The fact that most of the worlds population lives within 100 miles of salt water coasts makes a strong Navy imperative if we are to remain the world’s police force.

Let me say up front that I am not advocating for the F-35 as I am on the fence as to whether or not it is needed. The reason for the high cost of the F-35 is the the maligned acquisition aspects of having serveral service-level acquisition organizations. The time and effort (required by laws) that each has to spend doing the steps in the process are the main problem here. If we had one acquisition organization at the DoD level, with service specialists making sure particular needs are identified; we would save billions each and every year and expedite most purchases exponentially.

I like the idea of Congress asking the dangers of cutting the carrier force, but it’s kinda late for that, that is something they(congress)should asked before allowing sequestration to kick in. Gone are the days when congress can make adjustments after one of their “little screw-ups”. If the Carrier force were cut because of their stupidity, it would take many years, and many dollars to put those carriers back on line. And seeing as how the teabaggers are always how “broke the Government is”, that would have been a serious problem for out National Security. I don’t like it when teapublicans play politics with our safety.…it’s too dangerous, and it’s not a game, at least, I don’t think so.

Yes, because we saw what happens when the Forces buy foreign– AF hs been dragged into sub-sub-sub committees, Boeing is suing and crying fowl, public demands to use American first (even though they no longer wish to put high quality into it without the Unions jacking the price up 50%), etc.

They are practicing for their new positions in Congress.

We did forward defense wrong, is all I have to say. Realistically, the fighting power required to deter Japan was unrealistic in a pre-WW2 American military…which is why the military has remained of relatively constant size even after the end of the Cold War. Tennish divisions is enough to keep the world under thumb.

The unsung secret of the Pacific is the mobile support train. The ability to establish semi-mobile drydocks and repair facilities in the Pacific islands was key to increasing turnaround and forward resupply. Steaming all the way back to Japan (or Pearl/San Diego) diminishes your fighting power.

Thank you! But I’m a “Ma’am.” :-) It’s all good! :-D

I agree with all that you posted, but, the part about Adm. Spruance delaying the CV as an Offensive Weapon? What specifically are you referring to? The post-Marianas Battle regroup before the push onto the Philippines or some tactical decision on immediate future CV deployment? Spruance had the CVs Air groups offensively bombing all Japanese airbases in the Marinas for about 5–8 days before the Marinas Turkey Shoot. The loss of Japanese land-based planes to support VAdm. Jisaburo Ozawa’s Mobile Fleet as it advanced eastward to meet the US Fleet, immensely impacted Ozawa’s strategy, especially since it was early morning June 19th, 1944 when he realized his land-based planes were not coming!

Maybe, if this Government wouldn’t send out so much money to other Countries in annual subsistence (where half of it ends up in the hands of the corrupt and not to the intended ones who need it most), cut back on non-essential Govt.-funded Domestic projects and stop giving educational grants for such stupid things as U of Michigan to study the sex-life of an Earthworm (Yes, this actually happened)!
I could go on and on, but, the GAO (Govt. Accounting Office) needs to grow a spine and learn to say NO to alot more than just the Military!!! They could start with the current Administration too!

We could survive with 8 or 9 carriers unless we are planning to refight the battle of Midway again. The defence budget is way too large and should be slashed by about 25 to 30 percent immediately. Most of those weapons, especially the carriers, are overpriced and are not necessary. 8 or 9 plus the large amphibious ships that carry Harrier jets are just fine even though the Harriers are getting a bit old.

Hope they will not cut the numbers. They are our self defense tool against a rougue nation.

Fairly soon, around 2020, there will be two British carriers and one French carrier. I would have thought that the US could maintain six pacific carriers and two in the Atlantic while relying and integrating more with its allies. I appreciate that the British and French carriers will be less capable than Nimitz/Ford class vessels. I don’t accept that they will be ineffective, though. Perhaps US F-35s could deploy from the British ships. Right now, the British carriers are only slated to carry 12 F35s together with a large helo compliment. They could easy carry twice that many. The French carrier already carries a reasonably capable air-wing. Given the reality of budget deficiencies, it is time to think creatively. It is also time that US politicians and admirals stopped thinking about US capabilities in isolation. Multi-national carrier battle groups might be a very sensible solution. I’d like to see the bulk of the most capable USN assets focused in the Pacific where the threat level is clearly higher.

Only problem, though, is that the f-35 C will have hard time taking off from these carrier. It require EMALS as it’s too heavy, with some luck it might be able to take off with just enough fuel to go somewhere else.

we currently have 3 active duty carrier fleets on duty it takes 3 years to activate a decommissioned carrierm while the tyrannical governments the world over arm up with a singke goal, terminate the leader of the free world the United States of Americe, being dismantled by the current unelected regime bent on our destruction, we are rued by a demonic usurper


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.